Re: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.

On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:10, duanyucong wrote:

> Dear Bijan,
>  
> You know that i will agree with you when you say what have expressed is not conform to semantics of OWL specifications.

I do?

> I would assume that when you said so, you are an authority.

Regardless of whether I'm an authority, I am correct in this instance. Yay me!

> However i can not understand whether so many judgement expressed by you to a student

My mind reading capabilities failed to detect that you are a student. But I don't see how that's relevant: Students, in my experience, are quite as capable of writing gibberish as professors.

> such as "Gibberish", "silly",...etc are still based on 
> specification of OWL specification? Or some other AI specifications?

It's based on the fact that I cannot determine from your emails a cognitive structure that is 1) coherent and 2) reasonably in accordance with standard understanding of the terms you used. Part of this is your trouble with English which, I presume, lead you to state things a bit less tentatively than you might wish, But part of it is clearly a conceptual problem. AFAICT, no concept you mobilized was used in any standard or reasonable sense. (E.g., "notation", "CWA", "OWA", "semantics", "ontological", "negation"). This is characteristic of naive students and of kooks.

> BTW: I am learning OWL. So please expect that i will make mistakes and have questions:-)

No worries! I do suggest that you ask questions rather than making pronouncements. You might also recognize that you are deep in the weeds so it might be a good idea to draw back, read a textbook (or the OWL specs) with a fresh eye, and try again. If you can find a local expert to chat with face to face you might clear up you conceptual confusions more quickly. But it could help to start by not dismissing standard presentations of the CWA.

Cheers,
Bijan "With your best interests at heart" Parsia.